shelemm

If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium.

PalenQ

Belgium is all full up on Tuesdays!

marvelousmouse

It honestly looks pretty brutal to me: it took me 3 nights to get over my jet leg. I would not want to have done it in Rome. Unless you are absolutely positive your aren't going to suffer from that, you run a good chance of being a zombie for most of your Rome portion. And that would be such a waste! I agree with the poster who said they'd want hazard pay if it were a business trip. I also agree that it's doable, but I'm not really sure you've thought it through.

Issue one: there is a lot more walking than you might expect. I mean, I'm an enthusiastic walker, and pedestrian old towns are amazing, but all that walking takes time and energy. And as someone else said, just going to and fro between train station and hotel (not to mention walking IN the larger train stations) eats up so much time. And then there are are the train connections. They've been really simple so far, but it means I don't really sleep on the train because I'm not on any one train long enough to to sleep.

And I agree with St Cirq that getting the lay of the land takes time. And with mjs over needing break days. I need that every 8 days. I know from experience that I can't travel hard for 2 weeks straight and enjoy myself. At 10 days I almost always hit a wall.

Issue two: even small places have so many attractions and so much historic detail to gawk at. 3 nights minimum for cities like Berlin or Amsterdam or Prague and that will probably still feel really short. I'm on my trip right now, and I am doing an itinerary that is a bit more leisurely than yours. And I can already tell that there is just stuff on my list that I'm not going to get to. its not like I'm sleeping in or even eating out a lot. It's just that there is so much to see at the sights, on the way to the sights, on the way to get coffee in the morning, on the way to the drugstore...you get the picture. You've really got to build in "just in case I see something awesome" time and right now I don't even think you've got enough time for the highlights.

For Germany, I'd recommend getting a guide book and deciding what you mean by small town. But I just left Rothenburg ob Der Tauber, and I think that's what a lot of people think of when they think quintessential German town.

But I'm a lot like Kja. My travel list is really, really long. It's not like I never intend to return to Paris or Rome after this trip, but I know it's fairly unlikely I get around to returning soon. So I don't sample just to sample- I set up enough time for the stuff I really want to see and then make sure that comes first.

But again. Seriously. You need built in time just to experience the stuff you weren't expecting to exist.

WoinParis

Belgium is great on Tuesdays. But I am mostly in Paris.
I like this itinerary. I would drop one city.
I did much worse when I was young. 17 cities in one month. In the U.S.
Yes I could have come back and spend more time in each. But I never did. I had better places to see. Eheh.
And I would definitely not drop Prague nor Dresden.
Never been to Salamanca.
The rest looks like a trip I would if I were your age - don't forget we are all oldies here.
So I would drop Berlin. Too short to appreciate it and you can allocate the time elsewhere.
Have fun